Examples of Textual Variants

[Zakuska]

No, I don't feel better, Zak. I asked you to quote what you'd read and you, in response, plagiarized an anonymous comment in the meta of an article.

But, now, oddly, you suggest that you're going to have to add Hoffman's book to your library--which, taken at face value, obviously implies that you haven't read Hoffman's book.

A straightforward question now presents itself: Have you ever held Hoffman's book in your hands and read from it? Yes or no? Please answer.

No, Zak, you didn't "miss" the attribution. Far from it. You plagiarized someone else's words and presented them as your own. One doesn't merely "miss the atribution" when one highlights web text, copies it, and pastes that copied text into a response here on MADB, without attribution, as if the comment were a product of one's own reflection.

Again, I don't believe that you've read Hoffman's book. I don't believe that you even own it.

I do believe that you plagiarized someone else's comments about the book. Do you even know the title of the book in question?

cks

Apparently... Fair sells the book.

http://bookstore.fai...p?id_product=93

Celsus; R. Joseph Hoffman (Translator), New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, 6x9" softbound, 144 pages.

I definatley will be getting this book for Christmas!

PS. I never said I did own the book I only said Id been reading (Earlier today infact) and I came across that blog post.

[cksalmon]

Apparently... Fair sells the book.

http://bookstore.fai...p?id_product=93

Celsus; R. Joseph Hoffman (Translator), New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, 6x9" softbound, 144 pages.

I definatley will be getting this book for Christmas.

So, again, you don't own the book? You're getting it for Christmas?

You've never read it?

You plagiarized someone else's comments about a book you've never actually read and which you just recently learned that FAIR sells? And this is your response to a direct question about your source?

There it is. You'll forgive me, I'd think, if I don't take your posts all that seriously, Zak.

cks

[cksalmon]

PS. I never said I did own the book I only said Id been reading (Earlier today infact) and I came across that blog post.

So, since I pointed out the source of your plagiarism, you now admit that, no, you don't own the book, you just read someone else's comments about a book you've never read and decided to present them as your own.

I get it, Zak. I hope you get that book for Christmas.

cks

[Zakuska]

Earlier in the thread I made the comment that the Older text isn't necessarily the most reliable.

Let me Illustrate:

Let O = Represents the Original Text.

Let A = a text that a certian group copies from O. During copying they make some errors unintetionaly. (Or maybe intentionaly)

Let B = a text that another group copies from O. During copying they make some errors unintetionaly. (Or maybe intentionaly) This group makes the copies 50 years later.

O gets burned in a library fire 100 years after that.

A is now the oldest text we know about. But when it was copied it did have errors and variations from O.

So now comparing A and B. how do we decide which is the best text? If we try and fix the errors and make a C, how exactly do we determine where the errors are?

If We took A only just becuase it was oldest we would pick up all the errors made in its copying.

If We took B only we would pick up all the errors made in its copying.

So we have to look at all the variations and determine if the variant came as a result of copying A or as a result of copying B.

Based on years of experience, since textual critism came of age clear back in the 1700s, the textual critics have come up with this tool to determine what most likely was the original. "The more difficult reading is probably the original text" The reason they do this is because as a scribe was copying, when they ran into something they perceived as an error, wether a word was mispelled or perhaps the verse didn't quite fit their personal dogma or way of percieving things. They would change (ie Fix) it.

Codex Vaticanus proves this to be true. Were a Scribe found a mispelled word in the original manuscript he was copying from and fixed it in his copy. When his editor checked his work he cussed him out for fixing an error!

[Zakuska]

You are taking far too simplistic a construction of the other side. If you want to make a meaningful argument, you should examine the most robust thesis that your opponents provide and critique that, rather than an off-the-cuff version. The stronger formulation is this: Those texts in which a variant affects doctrine are either easily resolved by lower criticism or else the doctrine in question can be adequately established by other texts. For example, there is a real debate over whether John 1:18 says "only-begotten son" or "only-begotten God." Clearly a core doctrine is affected here. But in any case, the doctrine does not stand or fall on this verse alone, and indeed, Christ's divine sonship is itself an indication of his divinity, let alone monogenes.

For this reason, finding one variant in a key verse does nothing to advance your case against the Bible unless you show that it is impossible to establish the correct reading and that the total Biblical doctrine would be cast into doubt on the basis of your variant, or some set of variants. If you do not attempt to show these things, then you have not begun to deal seriously with the issue that the vast majority of your threads seem to be about.

1 Tim 3:16 is another text that affects this very doctrine. The greek word EO (who) was turned into an abreviation for God (EO with a bar in the O and a bar above the word.)

1 tim 3:16 in our KJV reads "God was manifest in the flesh"

The bar in the O was actually an accent mark from a word on the other side of the page which bleed through and so a Scribe saw this, and thought to him self how could this be? How did they make a mistake and miss the bar on the word God. So with different ink and a different pen, He added a bar above the word. Changing Who into God.

Note: This is probably an example of an unitentional change.

[cksalmon]

Earlier in the thread I made the comment that the Older text isn't necessarily the most reliable.

Let me Illustrate:

Let O = Represents the Original Text.

Let A = a text that a certian group copies from O. During copying they make some errors unintetionaly. (Or maybe intentionaly)

Let B = a text that another group copies from O. During copying they make some errors unintetionaly. (Or maybe intentionaly) This group makes the copies 50 years later.

O gets burned in a library fire 100 years after that.

A is now the oldest text we know about. But when it was copied it did have errors and variations from O.

So now comparing A and B. how do we decide which is the best text? If we try and fix the errors and make a C, how exactly do we determine where the errors are?

If We took A only just becuase it was oldest we would pick up all the errors made in its copying.

If We took B only we would pick up all the errors made in its copying.

So we have to look at all the variations and determine if the variant came as a result of copying A or as a result of copying B.

Based on years of experience, since textual critism came of age clear back in the 1700s, the textual critics have come up with this tool to determine what most likely was the original. "The more difficult reading is probably the original text" The reason they do this is because as a scribe was copying, when they ran into something they perceived as an error, wether a word was mispelled or perhaps the verse didn't quite fit their personal dogma or way of percieving things. They would change (ie Fix) it.

Codex Vaticanus proves this to be true. Were a Scribe found a mispelled word in the original manuscript he was copying from and fixed it in his copy. When his editor checked his work he cussed him out for fixing an error!

This simply has utterly and precisely nothing to do with the matter at hand raised by your own OP. It's like you're now commenting on a thread that you didn't start that has nothing to do, conceptually, with any if the issues you yourself have raised.

It's like observing my Doberman discover cheese. Except, even given his limited cranium, he understood cause and effect. He was a good dog and I miss him.

cks

[Zakuska]

You must not have been folloing the thread...

John T said this:

For the scholars, the critical apparatus in NA27 (in bold) has a rating of A for that verse. For non scholars, this means that ALL the best and most important and the newest findings from mss, codexes, etc support the position that the words there are 99.99% the exact words that Paul used. If you know statistics, that is a very significant degree of accuracy.

A couple posts later... I responded to vance who was responding to John T with this.

You haven't "disproved" any thing. Statistics are very interesting but really aren't proof but rather probabilities.

The probability IS very high that the words in "NA27" are the words that Paul used, and that is interesting, BUT, that doesn't tell us ANYTHING about the additional words that are the main topic of this OP.

AND you failed to address the question "Are the scribes more likely to have added these 18 words or taken them away?"

". . . that it is a mere gloss of an enthusiastic scribe, who added to the verse, the logical conclusion, that once he realized that sallvation was all of grace, he added a part." Is still a bald assertion.

PS. If one will add the phrase "of the law of Moses" after the word "works" in this verse one will get a better understanding of what Paul was really trying to get across.

Another thing he didn't take into account, and he would have known it if he would have read misquoting Jesus. Just because a Manuscript is older than another manuscript we have, Doesn't necessarily make it a more reliable reading. Because we see variants in those texts as well, and some of those could have only went in the other direction, which would point to a common manuscript now missing that they both were copied from.

I was simply illustrating that the MSS and the Dead sea scrolls etc. being older don't necessarily tell us what the original text really was.

If all you're here to do is redicule... Id' prefer that you would... go discover some cheese.

[cksalmon]

You must not have been folloing the thread...

John T said this:

A couple posts later... I responded to vance who was responding to John T with this.

I was simply illustrating that the MSS and the Dead sea scrolls etc. being older don't necessarily tell us what the original text really was.

If all you're here to do is redicule... Id' prefer that you would... go discover some cheese.

How about let's just let the foregoing speak for itself, Zak. Pointing out blatant plagiarism is not an instance of ridicule. It's just a recitation of the facts.

I've already amply made my point. We can let others judge for themselves.

cks

[soren]

1 Tim 3:16 is another text that affects this very doctrine. The greek word EO (who) was turned into an abreviation for God (EO with a bar in the O and a bar above the word.)

The Greek word for "who" is not EO, but OS. The bar turns the O into a theta, so that it becomes THS, the abbreviation for Theos.

1 tim 3:16 in our KJV reads "God was manifest in the flesh"

The bar in the O was actually an accent mark from a word on the other side of the page which bleed through and so a Scribe saw this, and thought to him self how could this be? How did they make a mistake and miss the bar on the word God. So with different ink and a different pen, He added a bar above the word. Changing Who into God.

Note: This is probably an example of an unitentional change.

Why do you think this is a response to what I said? You are simply giving another example of a textual variant akin to one I mentioned above. It is not a problematic variant and it has not been in common use historically. Have you still not figured out that the mere existence of textual variants does automatically make the case against authentic transmission? Have you never noticed how often the assumption that it does has been challenged in your own threads so that you cannot assume it as an axiom?

The reason I brought up John 1:18 was purely illustrative, to use a well-known text problem to show some principles at work that your line of argument wasn't dealing with. You have made no effort to address those principles. You have not tried to meet the criteria for a real argument that I proposedand yet you have given no reason to reject those criteria. By not responding to that, you miss the point of my post.

[John T]

Earlier in the thread I made the comment that the Older text isn't necessarily the most reliable.

True..as far as it goes.

However, how do you define "old" or "new"?

You see that is really the difficulty in textural criticism, and why the textural apparatus is so important. That is because the terms, "old" and new" are very imprecise. for example, the oldest extant manuscripts, the ones that are closer in age to the autographa are the ones that are the newest dug up, or found.

And some of the oldest known mss, such as the Stephanus, and the ones used for the KJV are also known as the newest because they were written as late as the 14th century.

Re read it again, and it will make sense. (Scout's honor)

[Vance]

. . . ALL the best and most important and the newest findings from mss, codexes, etc support the position that the words there are 99.99% the exact words that Paul used.

Since you just dropped this "fact" without any supporting documentation or reference, I call for a reference.

Not that I care a lot, because as I said, it doesn't tell us ANYTHING about the additional words.

If you know statistics, that is a very significant degree of accuracy.

I know enough about statistics to say that 99.99% is an UNBELIEVABLE degree of accuracy.

[Vance]

Another scoffing answer. Sarcasm is the adolescent substitute for learning. When you have facts, and present them, I may respond to you.

Still more of the "if you knew what I know, you would agree with me" drivel.

Obviously, you have zero understanding of statistics nor of the transmission of the NT documents.

And you obviously don't know anything about me.

Here is another irrational response; it is also poorly phrased.

Still avoiding the issue I raised but rather attacking the messenger.

Nevertheless, I supplied you with DATA.

No, actually you didn't provide any data but rather the partial conclusions from some unnamed source.

If you disagree, then you need to supply a reason why it is wrong AND supply the supporting data, otherwise, you are spewing balderdash, and nothing of substance.

Interesting that you berate me for no supporting data, when you haven't provided any data/calculations that support your conclusions and no references either.

Please supply the analysis from the manuscripts for that latter statement. Otherwise, you are offering mere opinion.

The fact that the extra words EXIST in some of the variants is a clear indication that the probability that they were in the autograph is non-zero. Sorry but you can't just dismiss them with the wave of your imaginary wand. I am waiting for you to provide the reference to the study you are using as a source, to see if it acknowledges this obvious fact.

Obviously no one knows exactly WHY those were added, . . .

True, because it is obvious that no one KNOWS when they were added or by whom. But one possibility which you haven't addressed is that they were added in the autograph by the author.

. . . but based on the best manuscripts, the shorter version prevails.

You keep saying that. Still waiting for some support. As I keep saying, the words of the shorter version are not the ones in question here. But rather the additional words. Obviously the words of the "shorter" version (or a slight variations of them) are in all of the manuscripts currently available. Your rather unbelievable 99.99% supports that.

But it doesn't say anything about the additional words. Are you trying to say that the probability=zero that the extra words were in the autograph? If so just provide the analysis.

The rating of that is am(sic) A in the critical apparatus.

Good for it. But that doesn't say anything about the additional words. You continue to use conclusions about the words of the "short" version against the additional words. Sorry but that is working for me.

There is one valid explanation for this "erroneous variant" as Z would hope he had here, and that is that it is a mere gloss of an enthusiastic scribe, who added to the verse, the logical conclusion, that once he realized that sallvation (sic) was all of grace, he added a part.

So you are a mind reader as well? Good for you.

I am more than willing to explore the issue, based on facts, but I do not discuss bloviating(sic) or posturing.

Well then you need to stop it and actually provide some references that have the facts.

If someone wishes to discuss the issue, please come forth. If someone does not understand what a critical apparatus is, I will be happy to explain that, also.

Well then, don't bother coming down from the ivory tower.

However, it appears that some here choose to demonstrate ill manners just because someone does not hold to the same beliefs.

It is true that there are arrogant jerks that show up here from time to time.

They just throw out stuff and expect us to genuflect to their elite station.

Certainly that is not dealing fairly, nor is it being respectful of other humans.

Talking down to others really is disrespectful.

That being said, I do not want to be the issue here, and I certainly do not want to be derailing where you want your thread to go.

Personally I don't care that much. When one understands that Paul was referring to the works of the law of Moses, then either version is acceptable to me.

[Zakuska]

The Greek word for "who" is not EO, but OS. The bar turns the O into a theta, so that it becomes THS, the abbreviation for Theos.

Now that I look at Erhmans book, yes that is correct. OS (who) with the bleed through on the page it was transformed into ??, a later scribe then added a bar over the word with a different pen to indicate the word was an abreviation, so when later scribes unabreviated it, it became ????

1 Tim 3:16

??? ????????????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????????? ????????? ???? ????????? ?? ????? ????????? ?? ???????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ????

Thus if we look at our NIV.

1 Tim 3:16

¹⁶Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:

He[a] appeared in a body,

was vindicated by the Spirit,

was seen by angels,

was preached among the nations,

was believed on in the world,

was taken up in glory.

And the footnotes:

a) Some manuscripts God.

http://www.biblegate...:16&version=NIV

Chapter 4: The Quest For Origins; Methods and Discoveries:

1. Richard Simon, who in 1689 wrote A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament, said: "There would not be at this day any Copy even of the New Testament, either Greek, Latin, Syriack, or Arabic, that might be truly authentic, because there is not one, in whatsoever Language it be written, that is absolutely exempt from Additions. I might also avouch, that the Greek Transcribers have taken a very great liberty in writing their Copies ... "

2. Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687 - 1752) established two criteria for identifying an original text when the wording was in doubt. The first criterion, Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua, simply means that a more difficult reading is preferable to an easier one -- the thought being that one out to change a scriptural passage would tend to make it more readable not the other way around. The second criterion suggests that all surviving documents can be classified into a kind of genealogical tree that can be traced backward.

3. Johann J, Wettstein (1693-1754) discovered that a different ink by a larger hand put over a couple of Greek letters with ink bleeding a horizontal mark in one of the letters gave the lie to the version, according to Ehrman of the version of 1 Tim. 3:16 that "had long been used by advocates of orthodox theology to support the view that the New Testament itself calls Jesus God." The letters were not an abbreviation but a word meaning 'who'. According to Ehrman, the original reading of the manuscript thus did not speak of Christ as God "made manifest in the flesh" but of Christ "who was made manifest in the flesh."

http://www.religious...rg/morgan01.htm

Why do you think this is a response to what I said? You are simply giving another example of a textual variant akin to one I mentioned above. It is not a problematic variant and it has not been in common use historically. Have you still not figured out that the mere existence of textual variants does automatically make the case against authentic transmission? Have you never noticed how often the assumption that it does has been challenged in your own threads so that you cannot assume it as an axiom?

Is not the title of the thread... "EXAMPLES (plural) of Textual variants"?

[soren]

Is not the title of the thread... "EXAMPLES (plural) of Textual variants"?

Surely the content of your argument is not limited to what you say in the title line. You are responsible for everything you wrote, including your statment that "Bible innerrantist claim that 'No Core doctrine is effected by variant texts'." By attacking this position without paying attention to its underlying nuances you attack only the weakest construction of the opposed side. This reminds me of Ehrman himself, who constantly argues against the position that "textual variants don't matter," when in point of fact updated versions like the NIV exist precisely because believing Christian teachers realize that they do matter. I for one think they matter quite a lot, and I have no fear of losing ground theologically by saying so. As a result, you have done nothing to advance your skepticism of the Bible, and the unprincipled character of your attack in manifest in that you respond to objections by disclaiming responsibility for an argument you made but have not retracted.

[Zakuska]

So lets seperate these and see if we can get a document family tree... So we can see at what point in time the two texts diverged.

One thing to note, Just because one tradition has more "copies" doesn't mean that tradition in the original or the best, it just says that one side has more potential for errors being propigated. This is illustrated by the fact that the SHORT side is +95% in English, and only has 1 Greek Source, were as the LONG version is attested to in many Greek documents.

First I'll seperate them by Long and Short readings, then I'll do some research for the dates when the translation was made.

SHORT Version: ( 21 )

----------------------------

6 But if by grace, no longer of works: since otherwise grace is no more grace.

DARBY

6 But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.

ASV

6 si autem gratia non ex operibus alioquin gratia iam non est gratia

VUL

6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

ESV

6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

ESV NT Rev. Int.

6 And if it is by grace, it is no longer by works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

NET

6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

NASB95

6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

NASB

6 and if by grace, no more of works, otherwise the grace becometh no more grace; and if of works, it is no more grace, otherwise the work is no more work.

YLT

6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

NRSV

6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

NRSV NT Rev. Int.

6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

RSV

6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

NIV

6 Now if by grace, then it is not by works; otherwise grace ceases to be grace.

HCSB

6 His choice is based on his grace, not on what they have done. For if God

[John T]

Still more of the "if you knew what I know, you would agree with me" drivel....

Personally I don't care that much. When one understands that Paul was referring to the works of the law of Moses, then either version is acceptable to me.

Since you really do not care, why are you investing so much effort to prove me wrong?

As to the "drivel" comment, below is the preface to the Critical Apparatus en toto, with the authors listed. If you can denigrate or dismiss these world class scholars in Greek, or their methodology, please supply your c.v. and then go ahead. If you can't then please read, learn and keep a respectful silence.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

To meet the growing need for an edition of the Gre^ek New Testament specially adapted to the requirements of Bible translator.

[Zakuska]

<snip>

Kurt Aland, Munster/Westf

Matthew BLACK, St. Andrews

BRUCE M. METZGER, Princeton

ALLEN Witgren Chicago

August 26, 1965

<br clear="all"> Exceptions chiefly involve proper names and citations of individual manuscripts within variants. In a few cases the Committee has adopted the spelling proposed for the 6th edition of Bauer

[John T]

If Im not mistaken, Bruce Metzger was Dr. Erhmans Professor. And the Student has become greater than the teacher.

Can you deal with the other stuff from the preface?

What bart did was to renounce all his fidelity to the Bible as inerrant, and dismiss the existence of miracles. I have no idea why you seem to crow at that, for he is not a Mormon, but an ordinary liberal Christian scholar.

[Zakuska]

Can you deal with the other stuff from the preface?

What bart did was to renounce all his fidelity to the Bible as inerrant, and dismiss the existence of miracles. I have no idea why you seem to crow at that, for he is not a Mormon, but an ordinary liberal Christian scholar.

There are a few problems with this methodology:

This edition has certain calculated limitations:

(1) the sets of variants have generally been restricted to readings mean­ingful for translators; consequently there is an appreciable reduction in the number of variants in the apparatus (but there is fuller attestation for the variants selected).

(2) Citations of evidence from the major lettered uncials (see p. xiii) and the Church Fathers have been derived from critical editions of the Greek New^- Testament. primarily those of Tischendorf and von Soden, but the uncials have been checked where the printed evidence was contradictory or incomplete.

(3) As a rule, no attempt has been made to represent the wide range of ortho­graphic variation in the manuscripts; the orthography of Bauer's Lexicon (5th edition; see bibliography) has been followed .

(4) The cross reference system has been limited to the citation of direct quotations, definite allusions, and literary and other parallels.

Just because there are more attestations to a particular reading doesn't make it more reliable. As I posted earlier and demonstrated. For the shorter reading you provide 20+ version in Engish and only one in greek. Were as the longer version had 5 In greek. Following this methodology The longer reading should be more reliable.

Perhaps this may help us...

(4) a second apparatus giving meaningful differences of punctuation. Much new evidence from Greek manuscripts and early versions has been cited. :1 supplementary volume providing a summary of tire committee's reasons for adopting, one or another variant reading, will also be published.

Any one have access to this supplemental volume so we can look up why they chose the shorter reading in this particular case?

[John T]

There are a few problems with this methodology:

Just because there are more attestations to a particular reading doesn't make it more reliable. As I posted earlier and demonstrated. For the shorter reading you provide 20+ version in Engish and only one in greek. Were as the longer version had 5 In greek. Following this methodology The longer reading should be more reliable.

The answer to your conundrum lies in the nature of the transmission of the NT text. All codices, mss papyri, etc are not equal in importance. the best (imperfect) analogy for that is the side of the apple tree getting the most sun produces better apples (supposedly). All the apples spring from a single trunk, but the branches --in this case families of similarly written material-- have fruit on one side that is insignificantly different from the fruit of the other side. Yes, the fruits are all apples, and the core and the nutritional values are equal, but the skin is what differs.

Perhaps this may help us...

Any one have access to this supplemental volume so we can look up why they chose the shorter reading in this particular case?

There are copies in the British Museum, St Petersburg (The Hermitage?) and other places. However since none of us have the $ to go there and see the originals, I refer you to this wonderful, and scholarly resource, the International Standard Biblical encyclopedia (ISBE), and in particular to this article: http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?type=getTopic&topic=Canon+of+the+New+Testament&DictList=4

Hope you have a happy Thanksgiving, and do not spend too much time on the blogs!

[Zakuska]

The answer to your conundrum lies in the nature of the transmission of the NT text. All codices, mss papyri, etc are not equal in importance. the best (imperfect) analogy for that is the side of the apple tree getting the most sun produces better apples (supposedly). All the apples spring from a single trunk, but the branches --in this case families of similarly written material-- have fruit on one side that is insignificantly different from the fruit of the other side. Yes, the fruits are all apples, and the core and the nutritional values are equal, but the skin is what differs.

There are copies in the British Museum, St Petersburg (The Hermitage?) and other places. However since none of us have the $ to go there and see the originals, I refer you to this wonderful, and scholarly resource, the International Standard Biblical encyclopedia (ISBE), and in particular to this article: http://www.bluelette...ment&DictList=4

Hope you have a happy Thanksgiving, and do not spend too much time on the blogs!

I use the BlueLetterBible all the time.

What Im suggesting is this particualr verse was modified due to the "Grace Alone" crowd that Jude and James seem to have been writing against. I intend to see if my Hypothosis holds water, by showing that the shorter reading passed through their hands.

[cksalmon]

Can you deal with the other stuff from the preface?

What bart did was to renounce all his fidelity to the Bible as inerrant, and dismiss the existence of miracles. I have no idea why you seem to crow at that, for he is not a Mormon, but an ordinary liberal Christian scholar.

The embrace of Ehrman by Internet Mormons puzzles me no little bit. Folks like Zak are so incredibly eager to embrace the opinions of a confirmed agnostic who utterly rejects any sort of divine communication whatsoever. The common denominator--and the only one that I can see--is that, like Zak, Ehrman also rejects the inerrancy of scripture. Of course, Ehrman also rejects the idea of divine scripture completely, but that miniscule disagreement can be tucked away, just so long as a liberal, agnostic NT scholar who would derisively laugh off the claims of Mormonism agrees with him that the Bible is unreliable.

Folks like Zak have utterly no notion of apologetic consistency.

cks

[Zakuska]

Correction...

The embrace of Ehrman by Internet Mormons puzzles me no little bit. Folks like Zak are so incredibly eager to embrace the opinions of a confirmed agnostic who utterly rejects any sort of divine communication whatsoever. The common denominator--and the only one that I can see--is that, like Zak, Ehrman also rejects the inerrancy of scripture. Of course, Ehrman also rejects the idea of divine scripture completely, but that miniscule disagreement can be tucked away, just so long as a liberal, agnostic NT scholar who would derisively laugh off the claims of Mormonism agrees with him that the Bible is unreliable.

Folks like Zak have utterly no notion of apologetic consistency.

cks

The Bible as we have it... even you would agree that its only innearrant in the original autographs which we do not have.

[cksalmon]

Correction...

The Bible as we have it... even you would agree that its only innearrant in the original autographs which we do not have.

Correction: I certainly believe that the Bible, as it has been transmitted, is reliable. As you and Ehrman do not. I would affirm against your OP that no textual variant has any significant bearing on matters of Christian doctrine. That was your purported complaint, right?

And, especially, I would affirm that the textual variant you've cited demonstrates nothing of the sort that you've claimed it to have done, as I've noted. Feel free to cite blog meta in response.

cks

[Zakuska]

Its a known fact that the church was fighting against "Antinomianism", thats were "Faith Alone" doctrine leads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism